Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Loving is about race, it says nothing about same sex marriage.
Loving is about race, it says nothing about same sex marriage.
Loving had a very simple yardstick: Provide a rational basis for banning a marriage.
None of you opponents to gay marriage has ever managed to pull a rational basis out of your collective asses. Many of your arguments are identical to the anti-interracial marriage arguments. Same bullshit, different decade.
So when the Supreme Court applies the same question to same sex marriages, the outcome will be the same as Loving.
Yes it is.
But it's not unrestricted. Your "argument" fails.
It is a right, it is restricted but that doesn't make it not a right. Marriage is not a right, restricted or not. I cannot demand my "right" to get married.
Your repeating the same incorrect information does not suddenly make it correct. The SCOTUS has ruled marriage a fundamental right. Denying that fact does not make it less of a fact. Pretending the government doesn't have the authority to restrict speech or the owning of firearms is still plain denial.
An incarcerated individual cannot have a gun while in prison...but the SCOTUS did rule you can't deny them a civil marriage license.
No, the SCOTUS did not. You are wrong.
I have proven the irrelevancy if your argument. You don't agree. Your opinion means nothing. It's still not a right.
Yes the SCOTUS did. Ignoring their rulings does not invalidate them.
Loving v Virginia
Turner v Safley
Zablocki v Wisconsin
If you want SSM legalized, then you need a constitutional amendment. otherwise this will continue for years.
when the constitution is silent on something we need amendments, thats why we have the ones we already have.
There's a reason we have a judicial branch, and that is so a minority cannot be irrationally oppressed by the majority.Loving is about race, it says nothing about same sex marriage.
Loving had a very simple yardstick: Provide a rational basis for banning a marriage.
None of you opponents to gay marriage has ever managed to pull a rational basis out of your collective asses. Many of your arguments are identical to the anti-interracial marriage arguments. Same bullshit, different decade.
So when the Supreme Court applies the same question to same sex marriages, the outcome will be the same as Loving.
maybe it will, I concede that. My point is that the members of society should decide these kinds of issues, not 9 unelected old farts who have political biases.
Do you really want societal views of right and wrong dictated to you? Would you take the same position if the 9 SC justices were all far right Bible thumpers?
These things set precedents and the philosphical bent of the court will not always be in your favor, so be careful what you wish for.
Loving had a very simple yardstick: Provide a rational basis for banning a marriage.
None of you opponents to gay marriage...
You are essentially arguing that we have always oppressed these people, and we should let the majority decide if we want to continue this irrational and unjust practice.
I asked no such thing. You asked and I answered.
I do have those rights. They are restricted by a tyrannical government against its own constitution, it's still a right. I have every right to yell fire anywhere I want to. I have to accept the consequences of my actions as I do for any right.
You have those rights- and they are restricted. You asked whether or not 'Are all rights unrestricted' and the answer is clearly no- you have no unrestricted right to own a gun, no unrestricted right to freedom of speech even if it endangers others lives. You have no unrestricted right to assemble in the middle of the Freeway.
That you believe that everyone else is wrong in restricting your rights- well that is your opinion- but not reality.
So, you are telling me that my right to marriage is restricted. If it wasn't restricted by the government then I would be able to get married when I wanted to? Is that what you are trying to say?
All of our rights to marriage are restricted. Regardless of whatever state you live in, you cannot legally marry a 5 year old of any gender.
You probably cannot legally marry your mother or someone who is not mentally competent.
You have the right to marry- the States can restrict your rights, but in order for that to be Constitutional, the state must be able to demonstrate a compelling state interest in doing so- like imprisoning a person convicted of murder can be justified as both necessary for justice and for safety.
Not much of a right then is it?
I think it is.
I can own a gun- but if I commit a violent felony, I lose my right to possess gun.
I have the right to marry a consenting adult- I can't marry a child who cannot consent.
Sorry you can't appreciate those rights.
Yes it is.
But it's not unrestricted. Your "argument" fails.
It is a right, it is restricted but that doesn't make it not a right. Marriage is not a right, restricted or not. I cannot demand my "right" to get married.
Your repeating the same incorrect information does not suddenly make it correct. The SCOTUS has ruled marriage a fundamental right. Denying that fact does not make it less of a fact. Pretending the government doesn't have the authority to restrict speech or the owning of firearms is still plain denial.
An incarcerated individual cannot have a gun while in prison...but the SCOTUS did rule you can't deny them a civil marriage license.
No, the SCOTUS did not. You are wrong.
I have proven the irrelevancy if your argument. You don't agree. Your opinion means nothing. It's still not a right.
Yes the SCOTUS did. Ignoring their rulings does not invalidate them.
Loving v Virginia
Turner v Safley
Zablocki v Wisconsin
Yes it is.
But it's not unrestricted. Your "argument" fails.
It is a right, it is restricted but that doesn't make it not a right. Marriage is not a right, restricted or not. I cannot demand my "right" to get married.
Your repeating the same incorrect information does not suddenly make it correct. The SCOTUS has ruled marriage a fundamental right. Denying that fact does not make it less of a fact. Pretending the government doesn't have the authority to restrict speech or the owning of firearms is still plain denial.
An incarcerated individual cannot have a gun while in prison...but the SCOTUS did rule you can't deny them a civil marriage license.
No, the SCOTUS did not. You are wrong.
t.
Glad to keep posting the Supreme Court's ruling on marriage- you can disagree with the Supreme Court, but unless you have a reading comprehension issue- you can't deny that they have indeed said that marriage is a right.
Loving v Virginia
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
Zablocki v. Rehail
AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.
Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"
InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,
InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:
"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."
Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)
"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur
"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"
Loving had a very simple yardstick: Provide a rational basis for banning a marriage.
No one banning marriage. The issue is that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality wants to redefine Marriage...
Sure it is. You want to move the goal posts your way, period. If two men can marry what arguement would you use against a man and his dad?LOL.....wow is that the best you have?So there's no reason to hear this one if it's the same as race. But wait...they are hearing it because it isn't like race at all. If they rule two men can marry then there's no reason a guy can't marry his dad or dad and three brothers. It will be their right.The Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a right repeatedly
The Supreme Court has ruled on gun ownership laws multiple times- does that mean there is no need for the Supreme Court to hear the case if Kansas passes a law outlawing the ownership of shotguns?
I don't know why you suddenly want to bring race into the marriage issue- but the Supreme Court has ruled at least three times on state marriage laws- regarding mixed race marriage bans, bans on marrying if a person owes child support and bans on inmates getting married- ruling in each case that these laws/rules were unconstitutional infringements on the right to marriage.
And just like those three cases- the Supreme Court will rule on the bans on 'gay marriage'.
If you want to pursue marrying your dad or your three brothers- you will have to file suit yourself- that is not before the courts, nor is it the same issue.
Sure it is. You want to move the goal posts your way, period. If two men can marry what arguement would you use against a man and his dad?LOL.....wow is that the best you have?So there's no reason to hear this one if it's the same as race. But wait...they are hearing it because it isn't like race at all. If they rule two men can marry then there's no reason a guy can't marry his dad or dad and three brothers. It will be their right.The Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a right repeatedly
The Supreme Court has ruled on gun ownership laws multiple times- does that mean there is no need for the Supreme Court to hear the case if Kansas passes a law outlawing the ownership of shotguns?
I don't know why you suddenly want to bring race into the marriage issue- but the Supreme Court has ruled at least three times on state marriage laws- regarding mixed race marriage bans, bans on marrying if a person owes child support and bans on inmates getting married- ruling in each case that these laws/rules were unconstitutional infringements on the right to marriage.
And just like those three cases- the Supreme Court will rule on the bans on 'gay marriage'.
If you want to pursue marrying your dad or your three brothers- you will have to file suit yourself- that is not before the courts, nor is it the same issue.
Marriage is not a right.
Loving had a very simple yardstick: Provide a rational basis for banning a marriage.
No one banning marriage. The issue is that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality wants to redefine Marriage...
Thank you for demonstrating my point that the arguments against same sex marriages are identical to the arguments against interracial marriage.
Marriage had to be "redefined" after Loving.
If you want SSM legalized, then you need a constitutional amendment. otherwise this will continue for years.
when the constitution is silent on something we need amendments, thats why we have the ones we already have.
Well that's not true. A number of States currently have SSCM based solely on State level action through the legislature and ballot votes.
>>>>
There's a reason we have a judicial branch, and that is so a minority cannot be irrationally oppressed by the majority.Loving is about race, it says nothing about same sex marriage.
Loving had a very simple yardstick: Provide a rational basis for banning a marriage.
None of you opponents to gay marriage has ever managed to pull a rational basis out of your collective asses. Many of your arguments are identical to the anti-interracial marriage arguments. Same bullshit, different decade.
So when the Supreme Court applies the same question to same sex marriages, the outcome will be the same as Loving.
maybe it will, I concede that. My point is that the members of society should decide these kinds of issues, not 9 unelected old farts who have political biases.
Do you really want societal views of right and wrong dictated to you? Would you take the same position if the 9 SC justices were all far right Bible thumpers?
These things set precedents and the philosphical bent of the court will not always be in your favor, so be careful what you wish for.
You are essentially arguing that we have always oppressed these people, and we should let the majority decide if we want to continue this irrational and unjust practice.
Marriage is not a right.
Let's stipulate that marriage in and of itself is not a right. Okay.
Religious rites, for the most part, are a right. So if you are married in a religious framework, no one can take that away from you.
Now, how exactly does a same sex marriage impinge on your religious rite of marriage?
It doesn't. Not in any way. Your marriage does not have to be redefined in your church so that gays can get married somewhere outside of your brand of religion.
Let's suppose for a moment that the state and federal governments decided to award $10,000 to anyone who buys a bicycle. However, they deny this award to anyone who is a homosexual. And this practice is maintained with the sanction of the whole society for over 200 years.
What possible rational basis could you give for continuing the denial of that award to gays?
You couldn't. All you have is, "We've always discriminated against this group."
That $10,000 award was established by law. And so we come back to rights again. The right to equal protection of the laws. And that is where the right to marriage recognized and awarded by the states' laws applies.
We have no rational basis for denying the cash and prizes to gays that everyone else is awarded by law for getting married.
Marriage is not a right.
Let's stipulate that marriage in and of itself is not a right. Okay.
Religious rites, for the most part, are a right. So if you are married in a religious framework, no one can take that away from you.
Now, how exactly does a same sex marriage impinge on your religious rite of marriage?
It doesn't. Not in any way. Your marriage does not have to be redefined in your church so that gays can get married somewhere outside of your brand of religion.
Let's suppose for a moment that the state and federal governments decided to award $10,000 to anyone who buys a bicycle. However, they deny this award to anyone who is a homosexual. And this practice is maintained with the sanction of the whole society for over 200 years.
What possible rational basis could you give for continuing the denial of that award to gays?
You couldn't. All you have is, "We've always discriminated against this group."
That $10,000 award was established by law. And so we come back to rights again. The right to equal protection of the laws. And that is where the right to marriage recognized and awarded by the states' laws applies.
We have no rational basis for denying the cash and prizes to gays that everyone else is awarded by law for getting married.
the real issue here is the use of the word 'marriage'. No one wants to deprive gays of any rights, no one wants to say that they cannot make a legal binding committment to a person of the same sex in order to get the "cash and prizes" that you erroneously keep referring to.
The bottom line is that many human beings the world over do not consider a gay union to be a marriage.
Why exactly do gays object to the term 'civil union' ? If it would get them the cash and prizes?
We all know the reason, now don't we? Its because the gay agenda is to use the government to mandate societal acceptance of a lifestyle that a majority consider to be deviant and wrong.
Loving had a very simple yardstick: Provide a rational basis for banning a marriage.
No one banning marriage. The issue is that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality wants to redefine Marriage...
Thank you for demonstrating my point that the arguments against same sex marriages are identical to the arguments against interracial marriage.
Marriage had to be "redefined" after Loving.
Marriage was not defined by race at all. There was no and remains no race criteria to the natural standard of marriage, which rests upon the physiological design of the human species.
That some felt strongly that race was worthy of defending through marriage, this was wholly irrelevant to the immutable, natural, physiological standard which defines marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
